Hands up for change

I think I've mentioned before that we're in the middle of a major re-organisation at work - many of us changing roles, all of us changing the way we work (culture). I was speaking to a colleague today about the process, and the associated frustrations, which led me to a half-formed thought about the stages of changing roles. Driving home it grew a bit. It's still rough around the edges, but...

I think that there are four changes that are needed when people stay in an organisation, but change their remits.

1 - Handover

This happens before the change is implemented, and involves discussing the role with the next incumbent; highlighting issues; passing on information etc.

2 - Hand holding

This straddles the change date and covers helping your colleague settling in by taking them to meetings; introducing them to key contacts; answering their questions as they take the reins.

3 - Hands free

This should cover the first few months - being there when called upon; finishing any tasks that require continuity.

4 - "Hands off!"

This is when the new postholder is confident in the role and wants to stamp their own mark on the job. It should include a 'thank you' and a 'please go away now'.

Does anyone recognise this man?

I came across this video from TED last night (it runs for about 16 minutes).  I almost didn't watch it, given my feelings about politics in this country at the moment.  However, I'm glad that I did.

While I recognise that the speech and appearance was no doubt carefully scripted/choreographed (although someone needs to teach him how to knot his tie!), there is a confidence and vitality about his delivery.  This got me thinking... if the difference is that Gordon Brown is speaking authentically about something that his is passionate about, why don't we see this side of him more often?

But also, for the rest of us, how much vitality do we bring to our day-to-day work, and how much more do we bring to the tasks that excite and inspire us?  And, what can I do as a manager to help staff bring their "A" game to the for?

In the meantime, can we please see more of this side of our undoubtedly talented but flawed PM please?

The Christmas party dilemma

Every year it happens to me. I agree to go to the office Christmas party. Why? Well, to be honest, simply out of a sense of duty. After all, I’m the boss and it’s important to be seen at these things.

Then the day of the party comes around and I really don’t want to go, and I promise to myself that next year I’m definitely NOT going. There are some convincing reasons why I shouldn’t go – it’s an additional commute only at the weekend; it disrupts family time; since I’m driving, I don’t drink – which means that I see and remember things more clearly than most of the others.

But really these are just excuses, as I attempt to justify my future non-attendance to myself.

Does the attendance of the boss boost morale or put a damper on the enjoyment of others? I don’t know – maybe a bit of the former. But for my staff group the latter seems to be completely irrelevant, which is great!

So, last might I duly went, and had a fairly good time. The food was mediocre, and the behaviour was boisterous. But I’m glad I went, and I did enjoy myself – staying much longer than I had intended at the start of the evening.

I consider myself to be very fortunate to have the staff group that I do. All of the teams mingled freely during the evening, there was much laughter and fun, three people who left us during the year came back for the party, and I didn’t feel like too much of a party-pooper.

It’ll be interesting to hear some of the tales on Monday, although I recognise that I will only hear the edited highlights!

Will I go next year? Almost certainly. Who knows I might even try to forget that i'm the boss, and just have some (sober) fun!

More Ryder Cup reflections

Following on from yesterday’s entry, there are a few other lessons that seem to come from the way that the American team won the Ryder Cup last week.

The principal issue is teamwork. This has been claimed by the Europeans as the decisive factor in their run of victories in recent Ryder Cups. The argument being that they worked better as a team, even though the Americans had the more gifted individual golfers.

Well, this year I think that Azinger did a fantastic job of planning and managing his approach to team-working. It appears that he grouped his players into 3 groups of 4 – based on the way that they lined up in Sunday’s singles matches, and in the paired events on Friday and Saturday. He combined is ‘flair/momentum’ players (Kim, Mahan, Leonard and Mickelson); his ‘rowdy, Southern boys’ (Weekley, Holmes, Perry and Furyk) and his ‘steady guys (Curtis, Cink, Cambell and Stricker).

I surmise that his Sunday philosophy was that if the first 4 players could build the right momentum, then they would sweep away their European opponents – this was only partly successful. (Although, as an aside, I think that the success of Anthony Kim against Sergio Garcia was hugely significant in both the outcome of the Ryder Cup and in establishing Kim as a mega-star of golf in the very near future.) By contrast the second group of 4 were all successful, and they completed the victory (rout) by each winning their matches. The crowd were really into it with these players – 2 of them from Kentucky where the match was being played. Finally, for Azinger, if his first two cohorts didn’t finish the job, then he had his steady guys at the end to grind out the necessary points.

The lesson here is about planning ahead and creating contingencies for a variety of scenarios.

But in reality, the Ryder Cup was won on Friday and Saturday. Again, Azinger worked with the same groups of 4 players, but he further divided them into pairs – mainly a blend of (Ryder Cup) youth and experience. It has long been a hobby horse of mine that people work best in consistent teams. There is a need to hold your nerve and let a team blend together. A couple of years ago, we brought a team together to implement a new software system. There were some initial difficulties and tensions, and some calls to change the composition – from within the team and from outside of it – but we stuck with it and let the sort out their differences. In the need we had a very successful implementation, in fact, the corporate Head of IT said that no other project had ever been so well managed.

Anyway, Azinger decided on his pairings and largely stuck by them. In the 16 matches on Friday and Saturday he used 7 pairings. By contrast, the European captain Nick Faldo used 13 pairings – which didn’t exactly indicate a high degree of confidence in his players (or his own decision making?).

There are other lessons that I could potentially draw out – like developing individual talents, using resources wisely, and about making sure that you have the right challenge mechanisms within your team, but enough already!

Congratulations to Azinger and his team for a well-planned and merited victory. And just for the record, Faldo didn’t get everything wrong – his choice of Ian Poulter as a wild card wasn’t universally popular over here (I didn’t agree with it at the time), but he was the most successful individual in the competition!

More on comfort zones

Had a bit of a frustrating meeting today with a colleague. This individual (please note gender neutrality to avoid identification!) is a senior manager in a fairly large organisation, responsible for a budget of several million pounds, a significant group of staff and - most importantly - the delivery of public services to needy people. They are experienced in their job, having been in their role even longer than me.

Anyway, they are heading up a project re-designing a bunch of services in their area of responsibility. We disagreed very early on in the meeting - as they tried to tell me how I should be doing the workforce planning for this project (the irony of this may become obvious in a wee while).

After a few minutes I thought we should move things on, so I asked where the project plan was. The response - 'there isn't one, and I don't do project plans!' This wasn't a humble recognition of a deficit in the management toolkit, this was almost a badge of honour. Next I asked for clarity on the objective of the project - there isn't one, or at least, it's not clearly stated. It seems that the approach to the project was to thrash around wildly, doing lots of things and asking for some major investment in the hope that the services will improve.

I've known this individual for over a decade, and I know that we approach things very differently. Nevertheless I was shocked by the (initial) attitude that planning was unnecessary. Effectively this manager's comfort zone is in handling operational issues, almost at an individual case level.

Well, being awkward - like I am - I wasn't prepared to let this rest. I have absolutely no intention of being associated with a project that is doomed from the outset, so I forced the issue, and in doing so, forced this individual out of their comfort zone - and into a place where thinking was required. In the end we agreed a way forward. I doubt that it will lead to any lasting change, but at least it's a first step.

The moral? If there is one, it may be that the deeply entrenched comfort zone is the hardest to deal with. For us as individuals and for those who work alongside us.